One issue that came up several times in the congressional hearings on the authorization for the use of force in Syria is whether or not the U.S. will markedly weaken the Assad regime in its targeted bombing campaign. Secretary of State John Kerry equivocated when asked this question several times, careful not to indicate that weakening the Assad regime would necessarily mean strengthening the Syrian rebels.
In other exchanges, Kerry, along with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey, spoke favorably about the rebel opposition, claiming it “has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution, which will be broad-based and secular with respect to the future of Syria.”
Apparently in answer to such claims (which, by the way are new and came only after President Obama decided to bomb the Assad regime “to make a point”), the New York Times today has published a sickening video of the same kind of barbaric rebel behavior we’ve been seeing for years. It depicts seven Syrian soldiers bearing signs of torture, bent down in front of their executioners, the rebels, and dumped into an unmarked grave somewhere in Idlib, Syria in April 2013.
A report in Foreign Policy magazine, published just as John Kerry was making dubious claims about rebel secularism to a Senate panel, also threw water on the administration’s new pro-rebel propaganda, claiming the leadership of the Free Syrian Army (supposedly the counterweight to the jihadist, al-Qaeda-linked rebels) is “on the verge of unraveling.”
Although the timing of the Times piece on “rebel brutality” is probably intentional, it’s not much different, in effect, from the video in which a rebel commander is seen mutilating a Syrian soldier, taking out his organs and biting into them. Note, also, that rebel groups have said they would use chemical weapons if they got the chance.
With regard to the first question, of whether these savage rebel groups are ones that we’d be bolstering by bombing the Assad regime, the answer is an unambiguous yes. The question then becomes, is Obama’s vaunted “credibility” more important than helping these guys make battlefield gains in a war for control over Syria?
Utter rubbish. Stop crying wolf> The Assads have killed hundreds of thousands, jailed in concentration camps tens of thousands of the cream of Syrian society. Used rape as weapon. All this by a murderous cruel minority clique bent on genocide of the majority. Time some one put an end to this Alawite clique which is a inhuman monster and the Left wing from their lofty ivory towers stop finding justification for Assad.
Funny how the worst states always happen to be the ones that are not allied with Washington…
History has given us an interesting, almost controlled experiment here. in 2011, Syria and Bahrain started to have pro democracy protests. Obama announced sanctions against the non-Washington compliant Syrian government, and helped pro Washington Bahrain dictatorship crush protesters.
Why would this be? Because Obama simply loves Syrian people but hates people of Bahrain? Or could it possibly be that Washington's only real motivation is to make all countries in the mid east open to US control, investment, and military bases?
This is of course not to mention Egypt, or that Syria's "Arab Spring" was actually incited by Washington, through CIA trained jihadists.
P word is so dirty that Obama probably regret accepting a Nobel prize for it.
No G.E.D. no white house job, period.
I can hear antiwar movements chanting DO BE STUPID on the street.
How do you know all this? I could point out that we had no problem with Bashir Assad when he was torturing our prisoners for us during the Iraq war. Speaking of which, how many people did we kill in Iraq? Remember the interview with Madeleine Albright, in which she was asked whether the death of 500,000 Iraqui children from our sanctions was worth it? She said it was worth it. And of course, Assad's father was an ally of ours in the first Iraq war. Funny how our sensibilities change with the circumstances.
There are atrocities committed by both sides which is all the more reason why we should not get involved. Why overthrow Assad if the likely outcome is that Al Quida will take over.
I bet you love the Egyptian junta,because they are bought and pay for by USA.
What I would hate more then going into Syria is being lead by someone as incompetent as Obama.
The thought Obama leading the US into war scares me more then going into war.
OBAMA play is to hunt all Mujahedoon nothing ELSE.
I'm personally shocked Glaser…
Like many here, I was operating under the impression it would be the 'libertarian' faction of the so-called "Syrian rebels" who would primarily benefit from the US Cruise missile strikes…the group who invited you and Ditz to Deir ez-Zor to speak on the virtues of 'trans-fat' in society…
Does this mean the much anticipated Deir ez-Zor 'trans-fat' conference is now canceled? Obama strikes again…
"What I would hate more th[a]n going into Syria is being le[]d by someone as incompetent as Obama.
The thought Obama leading the US into war scares me more th[a]n going into war."
Ever heard of the Libyan War?
I realize the Libya War was King Sarko's and Little David's war. Obama's (and thus our entry) was as a 'Johnny-come-lately.' But the Afghanistan War and Iraq War 2 were Crazy King George (W. Bush) III's war. There was nothing that forced Obama to enter the Libya War. He could have kept his mouth shut. Done nothing. Wait til it was over. Or let it be a quagmire that dragged on too long and sucked the EU and NATO countries and along with it sucked their economies down the drain.
Obama chose to make Libya his war. He did it without having Congress vote on it. Our country did the heavy military and economic lifting. Look at what this has done to our morale and our economy.
A report in Foreign Policy magazine, published just as John Kerry was making dubious claims about rebel secularism to a Senate panel, also threw water on the administration’s new pro-rebel propaganda, claiming the leadership of the Free Syrian Army (supposedly the counterweight to the jihadist, al-Qaeda-linked rebels) is “on the verge of unraveling.”
Ron and Rand Paul are increasingly the subject of ridicule and marginalization from mainstream politicos. This is especially true among the left, which apparently sees the escalating libertarian bent on the right as a threat to the Democratic Party’s electoral
Ron and Rand Paul are increasingly the subject of ridicule and marginalization from mainstream politicos. This is especially true among the left, which apparently sees the escalating libertarian bent on the right as a threat to the Democratic Partya??s electoral
It is considered as the trait of educated person that knowledge and all the beneficial information they have, keep on providing the hope and courage to spend life manfully and face all the realities of life with the optimistic behavior so that they could get success in every time spam.
OBAMA play is to hunt all Mujahedoon nothing ELSE.